Do you have any thoughts on this post?
Last December, I had the opportunity to join Steven Rinella, the host of the popular Sportsman Channel show MeatEater, for a sandhill crane hunt in Texas. I’d connected with Rinella at a few TRCP events and learned that he’d never hunted or eaten cranes, so I invited him to join me and biologist Mike Panasci, a Texas Tech University Ph.D. student I got to know as an adjunct professor. Rinella’s longtime friend Ronnie Boehme rounded out our group. Rinella’s been a great supporter of the TRCP and conservation, but besides that, he is my kind of hunter. I knew he’d appreciate the experience of hunting and tasting cranes for the first time.
Panasci did all the nitty gritty work of lining up lands to hunt on and making our “stuffer” decoys – skinned birds filled with wood and Styrofoam that draw other cranes toward our positions. He and another friend, Jon McRoberts, were responsible for exposing me to crane hunting after I joined the faculty at Texas Tech in 2009, and we’ve hunted together every year since. Hunting cranes is a lot like hunting geese: It’s all about scouting and patterning the birds, setting up the decoys just right, then hiding well in blinds and natural cover, and letting the birds work into the spread—when they cooperate, of course.
We had a few struggles on the front end of the hunt, as we quickly learned that hiding a couple of guys from wary cranes is pretty easy, but hiding three cameramen and four hunters is a bit more challenging. After testing a couple of setups and finding a prime location with better cover, we actually had a really successful hunt, as you’ll see in the resulting episode of MeatEater. We even bagged a rare banded bird—you’ll have to tune in to learn more about where that bird has been.
The Texas crane hunt airs on MeatEater this Thursday, August 20 at 8 p.m. on the Sportsman Channel.
Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture started the week on a high note by announcing its $20-million dollar investment in giving you better access to hunting and fishing. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack shared the 15 projects that will receive funding under the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program (VPA-HIP) “to enhance wildlife habitat, protect wildlife species, and encourage new opportunities for local businesses.”
Created in the 2008 Farm Bill and reauthorized in 2014, VPA-HIP awards money to states to expand or create public access for hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-dependent outdoor recreation. The program offers financial incentives and reduces liability concerns for landowners who allow sportsmen to access their property, while also providing technical support for wildlife habitat improvement. Among the VPA projects selected this year are first-time awardees Connecticut, Massachusetts, Missouri, and Oklahoma. These four new states bring the total impact of this program to three-fifths of the country, where deer, turkeys, ducks, and other wildlife will benefit.
This will be the last round of VPA-HIP funding under the 2014 Farm Bill, under which $40 million was authorized for this program through 2018. That’s just a drop in the $956-billion Farm-Bill-bucket, but VPA is the only federal program aimed at enhancing public access to private lands for hunting and angling, making this $40 million extremely important.
Especially since more and more sportsmen and women are faced with fences, no-trespassing signs, or hefty access fees rather than publicly-accessible woods and waters. Lack of access is the greatest barrier to hunter and angler participation, recruitment, and retention, so access to privately-owned farms, ranches, and forests has become even more vital to the future of our uniquely American outdoor traditions. By helping landowners open new access, this program is breathing life into the hunting and angling community.
And our community shows up with our wallets: We spend $646 billion each year on our outdoor pursuits and support 6.1 million jobs directly related to publicly-accessible waters, prairies, forests, and mountains. And thanks to the sportsmen and women who buy hunting and fishing licenses and pay excise taxes on guns and ammo, our state fish and wildlife agencies receive dedicated conservation funding that improves habitat for game and non-game species alike.
Those are some serious dividends.
Local groups could keep mine waste out of rivers like the Animas if not for this legislative roadblock
By now, you’ve probably seen reports of the mine accident in Colorado and the disturbing images of the Animas River turned yellow by the release of 3 million gallons of water contaminated with mine wastes. This occurred after an EPA-supervised cleanup crew accidentally breached a debris dam inside the Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colorado, last Wednesday.
As far as we know, there haven’t been reports of fish die-offs or drinking water contamination, and the river is starting to return to normal. The county has requested that the agency assist with analysis of the impacts to fish and wildlife, and outdoor recreation businesses are waiting for the all-clear to regain safe access to the Animas—we’ll be closely tracking news on all of this.
A great deal of blame has been directed at EPA—and deservedly so. Without question, there needs to be a full review of what went wrong and those responsible should be held accountable so this doesn’t happen again.
But we shouldn’t forget that while EPA may have caused this release, it didn’t create the pollution.
Our best estimate is that there are at least 161,000 abandoned mines, like the Gold King Mine, across the West. They are the dirty legacy of past mining booms that helped settle the region. The mines don’t just pollute our waterways after accidents; they are constantly leaking water polluted with heavy metals into rivers and streams—some at a trickle, and others at hundreds of gallons per minute. These mines were excavated prior to the creation of modern environmental laws that help ensure responsible mining practices, and there is no one to be held responsible for them now.
Federal agencies have stepped in to deal with the mess. Between 1997 and 2008, the EPA, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest Service spent $2.6 billion on abandoned mine cleanup, with EPA contributing the lion’s share ($2.2 billion).
Many other groups, like Trout Unlimited, want to help. TU wants to return fish to stretches of river so polluted by abandoned mines that they can no long support life, while watershed organizations want to revitalize their communities and boost their outdoor recreation economies and mining companies want to be good neighbors in the areas they operate. These good Samaritan and volunteer groups are stymied by provisions in environmental laws that would force them to be responsible for the entirety of an abandoned mine’s pollution should they even attempt a cleanup. That is a financial and technical burden that is impossible to bear. As a result, they can’t help clean up the worst of the pollution.
My former boss, Sen. Mark Udall (CO), repeatedly introduced legislation to fix this roadblock, and the time has come for other Western lawmakers to take up the cause and unleash the power of well-meaning groups to help clean up the West’s abandoned mines. As proven in the Gold King Mine incident, we can’t afford to leave anyone on the sidelines if they want to help.
Trout Unlimited has been fighting for years to address the problems of mine pollution in the West. To learn more about the abandoned mine problem and how to take action, go to sanjuancleanwater.org.
With all the recent talk about Clean Water Act jurisdiction and the unceasing congressional attacks on a rule that protects wetlands and headwater streams, what seems to be getting lost is the message from hunters and anglers on the ground. Sportsmen care about clean water as much as anyone, and we’re the first to stand up and make ourselves heard when a favorite fishing hole is at risk or a wetland is impaired. And sportsmen have spoken up for our most cherished waters and wild places throughout the rulemaking process that led to the EPA’s recent announcement of the Clean Water Rule.
Tim Mauck and Dan Gibbs, lifelong sportsmen and county commissioners in Colorado, shared their view with the Denver Post, saying in a joint op-ed that “the Clean Water Rule keeps us moving forward in protecting and restoring our headwaters.” Mauck has also testified (not once, but twice) before Congress about the positive impacts that a restored Clean Water Act will have on his county and his sporting traditions.
Chris Hunt captured it succinctly in Hatch Magazine, where he said this rule “simply protects the waters that contribute to our sporting culture.”
No federal rule is perfect, and this one has been particularly contentious because of the many demands on our nation’s waters and wetlands, but sportsmen understand the great strides made for fish, wildlife, and habitat in the final clean water rule, which clarified significant Clean Water Act uncertainty. Now, as Bob Marshall wrote at Field & Stream, we are “infinitely better than where we were for the last 10 years, when the majority of our stream sides and waterfowl habitat, and many of our drinking water sources, were vulnerable to destruction.”
And champions of the rule aren’t just looking to improve their days afield. There are some whose livelihoods depend on quality fish and wildlife habitat. According to Dave Perkins, executive vice chairman of the Orvis Company: “The clean water rule is good for our business, which depends on clean, fishable water. Improving the quality of fishing in America translates directly to our bottom line, to the numbers of employees we hire right here in America, and to the health of our brick-and-mortar stores all over the country.”
Travis Campbell, president and CEO of Far Bank Enterprises, an integrated manufacturer and distributor of flyfishing products from Sage, Redington, and RIO, agrees. “My company depends on people enjoying their time recreating outside, especially in or near watersheds,” he said in a press release. “Clarifying which waterways are protected under the Clean Water Act isn’t a nice-to-have, it is a business imperative.”
Despite all the good that the final rule does for hunting and fishing, opponents are using hyperbolic misinformation to persuade their allies in Congress to attack the rule at every turn. This, too, has earned a response from sportsmen. “We must strongly oppose efforts to overturn the rule—and question the motives of those who would undermine it,” said Greg Munther, co-chair of the Montana Chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers. “Consider everything Montana stands to lose if their efforts are successful.”
After nearly 15 years of Clean Water Act confusion and a multi-year rulemaking process that takes into account more than 400 meetings with stakeholders and over one million public comments, we finally have a restored Clean Water Act that protects fish and wildlife habitat and gives certainty to landowners. But the fight isn’t over.
We would do well to heed the words of Andy Kurkulis, owner of Chicago Fly Fishing Outfitters and DuPage Fly Fishing Co. in Illinois: “Anyone who has ever swam in our beautiful Great Lakes, or fished or boated on our abundant rivers and waters has benefited immeasurably [from the Clean Water Act]. Now is the time to raise our voices in support of clean water—our economy, and future generations of hunters and anglers, depend on it.”
To read more feedback on the clean water rule from engaged sportsmen across the country, click here. Learn more by digging into TRCP’s Sportsman’s Tackle Box for Understanding the Clean Water Rule.
In the last two years, policymakers have committed to significant investments in conservation, infrastructure, and reversing climate change. Hunters and anglers continue to be vocal about the opportunity to create conservation jobs, restore habitat, and boost fish and wildlife populations. Support solutions now.Learn More